Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

feat(graphql/versioning): Add versioning support to graphql; mutations return version set #12358

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Jan 17, 2025

Conversation

asikowitz
Copy link
Collaborator

Checklist

  • The PR conforms to DataHub's Contributing Guideline (particularly Commit Message Format)
  • Links to related issues (if applicable)
  • Tests for the changes have been added/updated (if applicable)
  • Docs related to the changes have been added/updated (if applicable). If a new feature has been added a Usage Guide has been added for the same.
  • For any breaking change/potential downtime/deprecation/big changes an entry has been made in Updating DataHub

@github-actions github-actions bot added the product PR or Issue related to the DataHub UI/UX label Jan 15, 2025
@datahub-cyborg datahub-cyborg bot added the needs-review Label for PRs that need review from a maintainer. label Jan 15, 2025
"""
Additional version identifiers for this versioned asset.
"""
aliases: [VersionTag!]!
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@asikowitz just curious -- is there a reason that we defined aliases as a non-nullable field? (even with the empty array?)

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In general it's nice when there are fewer null states to deal with. I don't think there's a functional difference between an empty list of aliases and a null list of aliases, so we just assign aliases to empty list by default. Ultimately, this is reflecting the type in the modeling layer which is non-null

@datahub-cyborg datahub-cyborg bot added pending-submitter-response Issue/request has been reviewed but requires a response from the submitter and removed needs-review Label for PRs that need review from a maintainer. labels Jan 16, 2025
@datahub-cyborg datahub-cyborg bot added pending-submitter-merge and removed pending-submitter-response Issue/request has been reviewed but requires a response from the submitter labels Jan 16, 2025
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 16, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
datahub-web-react/src/Mocks.tsx 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
datahub-web-react/src/appConfigContext.tsx 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

... and 5 files with indirect coverage changes


Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 7eaadb0...ae1a957. Read the comment docs.

@asikowitz asikowitz merged commit 05ed277 into datahub-project:master Jan 17, 2025
141 of 142 checks passed
@asikowitz asikowitz deleted the versioning-graphql branch January 17, 2025 06:56
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
pending-submitter-merge product PR or Issue related to the DataHub UI/UX
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants